majorspark;1496682 wrote:This whole Syria thing is rapidly descending into an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. It smarts of a lot of rash reactionary decision making. Its a train wreck. First we have Obama's public "red line" comment which set this train rolling down the tracks. Then we have a small step or two across the "red line" then a leap. The Brits bail within days. Kerry is out making the case for a military response then Obama comes out with a decision to respond with military force and will seek Congress's approval to do so.
Fail number one you do not publicly draw lines that can only be enforced with a military response unless; Number one there is a great insurance of a military success, number two all military contingencies have been reviewed by the POTUS's immediate subordinate generals, number three any foreign support if needed must be assured, number four Congress needs to be solidly on board to back that line, and last and not least the American people need be convinced that their blood and treasure is worth the price of holding this line.
Agree on most of this. The comments seem to be ad libbed and caught everyone off. The administration has usually been good on their declaratory posture. In their National Security Strategies, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the Ballistic Missile Review, declaratory statements were really sparsed out, written in a very fine language. This off hand comment, the red line, threw all of that out of the window. It was a stupid comment that really limited the options for the U.S. You could see that as the 1st reports came out months ago of chem wepaons. The admin. was walking away from the Red Line. Suddenly, now, they have to do something. Otherwise, why make the statement? Credibility, really important in declaratory posture, is at stake now.
I agree on the chain of events needed. The military has the plans, that is their job. But, still, they are really uneasy knowing they are already stretched thin in the region (Getting out of Afgh, and the shift to the Pacific). The other aspects, I think the admin did not account for how the memories of the Iraq War, and the lead up to that would play on getting support. The Brits saying no is a "whoa" as the entire debate wasn't about Syria, but about Iraq. From there, only the French are saying yes (reverse of 2003, odd).
Along those lines, I think the Admin failed to understand the level of skepticism, thanks to Iraq on intelligence. The intelligence reports released were reports, they were just, "Here is our version of the evidence, trust us." That doesn't fly anymore, especially in the public eye and Congress. The admin has to release more intelligence findings and show, with full credibility, why action is needed.
One thing the Bush admin was good at was selling, and good God did they really know how the get support for the Iraq war. The admin was totally caught off guard on the public selling of the policy. They just thought, we can strike, no problem. Wrong.
Another problem is timing for them. Naturally, the longer after the strike, the less the public will support it, not in their minds. Now, support is no longer in support of the strike. The President should have addressed the nation in prime time with all the evidence and said, I will seek support of the allies, and Congress to strike in a manner of days, just like Desert Fox in 1998. Instead, he waited and now it is a mess.
The vast majority of the international community has signed on to outlawing the use of chemical weapons during warfare. Syria is not one of them. But if Obama wants to enforce an international treaty should he not have the support of the majority of the big signatories of that treaty to use military force to enforce it? A treaty is nothing more than a peace of paper after all. And if you take my fail number three international support is critical in this case. This is what makes Obama's walk back on his "red line" so disingenuous. The international community drew the "red line" and congress signed on via treaty so they are the party to it? If a nation signs a treaty they expect the other signatories to be equally involved in abiding by its obligations. We got France (maybe) with some support and Russia threatening indirect military support of Syria. So we act alone? That's not a treaty.
Since Syria isn't a party to the treaty, hard to make that argument. But, I agree, it needs to be a point in the overall justification for a strike. Say, in order to strength the rule of international law, we need to back up the Chemical Weapons Convention and through force, get Syria to give up weapons and sign and ratify the treaty.
If a nation is in a collective agreement with others one nation does not have sole authority to draw lines and speak for the collective parties without their mutual consent. That is the issue here. All this in the face of a war fatigued nation that would need some strong convincing only compounds the issue. Then you have John Kerry throwing out the idea that several Arab nations are willing to foot the whole bill. American soldiers are not mercenaries. Seriously think before you speak.
That said there is a legitimate national and international interest in enforcing the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons used in war. That is totally lost in this cluster****.
I doubt troops will be involved, and I'm fine with the Arab states footing any bill, it is their area. Frankly, they should be doing more with strikes, but since we have the cruise missiles, falls to us.
I agree on your last point, the CWC and international law is at risk, which is why a strike is needed. Problem again, Syria isn't a member of the treaty and one flaw in law is how do you force another sovereign country to adhere to the norms if they are not a member? Force and sanctions are the only means to coerce.
Hopefully, whatever outcome, Syria will, down the road give up their weapons and sign, and ratify the treaty.
